Mick Wests debunking of navy uap vids, any counterarguments?

Generate New Template

public (1567) , uap (1561) , disclosure (1383) , ufo (1296) , transparency (1220) , government (1066) , information (1011) , disinformation (943) , ufos (919) , campaign (862) , congress (769) , people (678) , phenomena (648) , national (632) , urge (586) , regarding (565) , issue (565) , unidentified (561) , security (538) , truth (506) , american (506) , support (503) , potential (498) , know (477) , trust (469) , uaps (467) , writing (462) , accountability (461) , time (424) , scientific (410) , intelligence (381) , understanding (370) , act (363) , rep (357) , members (354) , defense (331) , action (314) , efforts (311) , research (310) , committee (309) , objects (302) , related (301) , legislation (297) , house (290) , secrecy (288) , oversight (286) , template (283) , ndaa (282) , concern (280) , being (274) ,

​

I recently watch a video of Mick’s that suggests the gimbal video is a distant plane with the rotation being the camera, the flir video being a distant plane (does look very similar when compared to a distant plane in the type of camera used) and the gofast video being a balloon. What doesn’t he account for that could upend these explanations? It seems logical to accept this explanation unless there’s other bits of data about the encounter, which if there is, what?

submitted by /u/Extra_Difficulty_851
[link] [comments]  

​Read More